Who We Are

We are pro-energy, pro-science, and pro-technology

The Energy
Advocate is a newsletter that is sent by US mail monthly to our subscribers

We favor safety. (Who doesn't?)

We encourage conservation (Who doesn't?)
However, we battle the charlatans who tell us that conservation is a source
of energy.

We are pro-energy. However, we battle
the charlatans who want to substitute piddle power for real energy sources.

We are pro-environment. Solar
projects almost unfailingly have enormous environmental impact.

There is no such thing as "safe
energy." To ask for it is to ask for gasoline that doesn't burn.
We only request that the safety of energy sources be judged on the basis
of the same output.

Perhaps there is global warming,
and perhaps there is a human influence, and perhaps that is bad.
But we are not on the global-warming bandwagon.

The Energy Advocate is a monthly newsletter
--- printed on paper, not computer screens --- dealing with energy issues.
The Energy Advocate is a cross between
an educational blurb and a bottle of salsa. We make
no apologies for being pro-science, pro-technology, pro-energy --- and
especially, pro-nuclear.

We are pro-safety, and assert that all
sources of energy are safer than doing without. We oppose "safety" measures
that ultimately cost lives, especially those that substitute fickle solar
toys for reliable energy sources.

We encourage conservation, but do not regard
it as a source of energy. (Is dieting a source of nutrition?) Not everybody
agrees with this. Learn how the dinosaurs
disappeared!

We are pro-energy, but are critical of piddle-power
projects that masquerade as significant energy sources. For
example, the Department Opposed to Energy (DOE) opposes the use of nuclear
and all fossil fuels, but has high acclaim for the Solar-II project, which
allegedly produces 10 megawatts of electricity. If a 130-acre project producing
a paltry 1% as much power as a serious power plant weren't bad enough,
the 10-MW figure applies only to the mid-day sun; overall, Solar-II produces
a mere 1.6 megawatts around-the-clock average power.

We are pro-environment, but that doesn't
make us favor DOE's solar toys. Scaling Solar-II up to a serious size ---
1000 megawatts around the clock --- would require 100 square miles and
enormous environmental impact. By comparison, Northeast Utilities (as just
one example) produces about 2500 megawatts on less than one square mile.

We battle Washington bureaucrats who stifle energy development in order
to polish their image as "tough regulators." Recently, for example, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gotten into a dither about an unbelievably
tiny 0.28 micrograms of plutonium in a test sample that was evidently buried
with low-level waste over twenty years ago. They use this as yet another
excuse to keep billions of watts of electricity from being generated. Such
fussiness makes good press but kills people because it substitutes more
hazardous sources for nuclear power while the NRC fusses ad infinitum about
trivialities.

But does our pro-nuclear stance make us jump onto the global-warming
bandwagon? Not at all! There is no credible evidence that the temperature
rise of the last century is anything out of the ordinary, and even less
that a warmer earth would be less habitable than it is now. Nor will we
attempt to scare readers with sea-rise, for it amounts to only the thickness
of a nickel per year, as it has for millennia.